Logical fallacies are reasoning errors that are made when arguing or debating. These fallacies can be misleading, persuasive, and are often used to manipulate the opinion of others. Knowing logical fallacies is crucial to developing critical thinking skills and solid argumentation.
First, logical fallacies allow us to recognize and challenge false or misleading arguments. In today’s society, we are exposed to a large amount of information and opinions on different platforms, such as the media and social networks. By being familiar with logical fallacies, we can identify arguments that lack solid foundation or employ flawed persuasion tactics. This helps us protect ourselves from manipulation and make informed decisions based on evidence and sound reasoning.
Second, knowledge of logical fallacies allows us to evaluate and construct arguments more effectively. By studying and understanding the different fallacies, we can improve our ability to identify weaknesses in the reasoning of others and strengthen our own arguments. By being aware of common fallacies, we can avoid falling into logical traps and develop stronger, more persuasive arguments.
Furthermore, knowing logical fallacies helps us foster rational and constructive dialogue. When we participate in debates or discussions, it is essential to avoid the use of fallacies to maintain effective communication. By recognizing fallacies in others’ arguments, we can politely point them out and encourage an exchange of ideas based on logic and evidence. This allows us to reach more rational conclusions and achieve greater mutual understanding.
Another benefit of knowing logical fallacies is that it helps us develop critical thinking skills. Critical thinking involves objectively analyzing and evaluating the information and arguments presented. By understanding logical fallacies, we are able to identify and question assumptions, evaluate the validity of arguments, and examine the logical consistency of claims. These skills are essential for making informed decisions in various aspects of life, from academic to professional and personal.
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
Below we will take a tour of the 16 most common fallacies and examples that will help you understand them and how to avoid them.
PDF version
We prepare an optimized PDF version so you can print, highlight and study more comfortably. This version is exclusive for Pro members and you can become a member from $6 per month. With your membership you have access to exclusive material and support our work.
ad hominem
The ad hominem fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which a person is attacked or criticized rather than addressing or refuting their arguments or points of view. Instead of addressing the merits of an argument, the ad hominem fallacy focuses on discrediting the person making the argument.
This fallacy is based on the erroneous premise that the validity of an argument is directly related to the person presenting it. Instead of analyzing the logic, evidence, or coherence of the argument itself, attention is diverted to personal or irrelevant aspects of the person presenting it. An attempt is made to discredit the individual with the goal of invalidating his or her points of view.
It is important to note that personal attacks do not refute or disprove the arguments in question. Even if a person has negative characteristics or actions, this does not necessarily invalidate his arguments. Arguments should be evaluated on their own merit and not by the person presenting them.
An example of an ad hominem fallacy would be: “You can’t trust Juan’s claims about global warming because he is a gambling addict.” In this case, instead of addressing the arguments or evidence presented by Juan about global warming, an attempt is made to discredit him based on an unrelated personal characteristic.
Straw man
The straw man fallacy is a rhetorical or argumentative technique in which a person’s position or arguments are distorted or exaggerated in order to easily refute them. Instead of addressing the actual arguments someone is presenting, you create a simplified or distorted version of them and then attack that altered version. This fallacy is based on the erroneous premise that refuting the distorted version of an argument is equivalent to refuting the original argument.
The name of this fallacy comes from the idea that one is creating a “straw figure” that is easy to tear down instead of directly confronting the real position of the interlocutor. By constructing a weak or false version of the opponent’s argument, it becomes easier to discredit and refute it, although this distorted version may not accurately reflect the other person’s actual views.
An example of the straw man fallacy would be:
Person A: “I think we should invest more in education to improve the quality of our educational systems.” Person B (distorting the argument): “So according to you, we should spend all our money on education and not worry about anything else, right? “That is completely irrational and there is not enough money to do it.”
In this case, Person B exaggerates and distorts Person A’s position by claiming that he or she advocates an extreme and unrealistic idea of spending all the money on education. In doing so, Person B creates a simplified, easily refuted version of Person A’s argument, rather than addressing the actual point being made.
Authority
The authority fallacy is a reasoning error in which a statement or argument is accepted as true simply because it comes from an authority figure or expert in a certain field. Instead of evaluating the validity of the argument itself or examining the evidence and logic behind it, blind reliance is placed on the credibility or status of the person presenting it.
While the opinions of experts and authority figures can be valuable and worthy of consideration, they are not irrefutable proof of the truth. Even people with knowledge and experience in a specific field can make mistakes or present weak arguments. Therefore, relying solely on someone’s authority without critically evaluating their claims can lead to incorrect conclusions or logical fallacies.
It is important to remember that the foundation of a sound argument is based on evidence, logic and internal consistency, and not on the position or reputation of the person presenting it. To properly evaluate an argument, it is necessary to examine the quality of the evidence and reasoning presented, as well as consider various perspectives and sources of information.
An example of authority fallacy would be:
Expert A: “Climate change is a myth created by corrupt scientists and there is no need to worry about its impacts.” Person B: “Expert A is a renowned scientist with decades of experience, therefore his claim must be true.”
In this case, Person B blindly trusts the authority of Expert A without examining the arguments or evidence supporting his claim. The fallacy lies in automatically accepting Expert A’s statement as true based solely on his authority status, without considering other points of view or contrary evidence.
false dilemma
The false dilemma fallacy, also known as false dichotomy or false dilemma, is a reasoning error in which a situation is presented as if only two mutually exclusive options exist, when in reality there are more possibilities or nuances available. This fallacy simplifies and reduces the complexity of a problem by offering only two extreme alternatives, forcing the audience to choose between one option or another, without considering other perspectives or intermediate solutions.
The false dilemma fallacy seeks to limit the available options and restrict debate, preventing other reasonable alternatives from being considered. It is often used as a persuasive tactic to manipulate public opinion or to support a particular position.
A common example of the false dilemma fallacy is the following:
“Either you are with us or you are against us.”
In this case, a binary choice is presented in which only two options are offered: agree and support a group or disagree and oppose them. The possibility of having a neutral opinion or position or having an intermediate point of view is ignored. This fallacy seeks to force a polarized decision and does not allow for debate or adequate consideration of other perspectives.
It is important to recognize and challenge the false dilemma fallacy when encountering it. Rather than accepting the premise of an exclusive choice between two options, one should seek a broader understanding and consider other possible alternatives. There may be trade-offs, additional options, or perspectives that need to be explored to get a more complete and accurate view of the problem at hand.
Mistake
The fallacy of equivocation, also known as the fallacy of composition or division, occurs when it is assumed that what is true for an individual part of something must also be true for the whole, or vice versa. This fallacy is based on an incorrect inference that incorrectly generalizes characteristics or properties of parts or individuals to the whole.
The fallacy of equivocation can occur in different contexts. In the case of the fallacy of composition, it is assumed that if each part of a set has a certain property, then the whole set also has that property. For example, one could claim that if each player on a soccer team is individually talented, then the team as a whole will be a talented team. However, this is not necessarily true, as other factors such as coordination and teamwork are also important in determining the quality of the team as a whole.
On the other hand, in the fallacy of division, it is assumed that the characteristics or properties of the whole must apply to each of the individual parts. For example, one could argue that if a country is rich, then all the individuals in it must also be rich. However, this does not take into account the economic diversity within the country and the possible existence of socioeconomic inequalities.
It should be noted that the characteristics or properties of the individual parts do not always translate directly into characteristics or properties of the whole, and vice versa. The reasoning must be based on a careful evaluation of each particular case and not on unfounded assumptions…